Taking Liberties
August 24, 2009 8:26 PM

Did CIA Interrogators Violate Federal Law Against Torture?

(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Before you read the following excerpts from the CIA interrogation report released today, consider these three points:

1. A 1994 federal law prohibits U.S. nationals from performing torture upon penalty of up to 20 years in prison. "Torture" is defined as the threat of imminent death, the threat of someone else being killed, and acts "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

2. Waterboarding has long been viewed as torture. A post-World War II tribunal ruled that waterboarding was torture when performed by the Japanese; the U.S. government condemned it at the time as a "brutal and bestial" practice. When U.S. soldiers were subjected to it during the Philippine-American War, a senator denounced it in a 1902 speech as "cold-blooded, deliberate, calculated torture." In 1984, a federal appeals court ruled that waterboarding done by Texas law enforcement was "torture."

3. By the end of his term as president, George W. Bush knew the techniques that CIA interrogators employed. Yet on his final days of office, when he was signing petitions for clemency, he chose not to pardon anyone involved. (A few years earlier, Bush had declared that "torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere.")
The declassified-but-heavily-redacted CIA report released on Monday by the Justice Department reveals these so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques:

* Waterboarding was designed to produce "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic,' i.e., the perception of drowning... It is likely that this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in any one application." The waterboarding technique involved "large volumes of water" and was more extreme than what the CIA initially (and privately) said it would do. One prisoner "was subjected to the waterboard at least 183 times... and was denied sleep for a period of 180 hours."

* One interrogator used an unloaded semi-automatic handgun as a prop to frighten alleged al Qaeda official Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The interrogator "racked the handgun once or twice close to Al-Nashiri's head," and another "entered the detainee's cell and revved the drill while the detainee stood naked and hooded."

* Al-Nashiri was told that "We could get your mother in here" and "We can bring your family in here," a reference to sexual assaults. Another detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was told that if there are other attacks on the United States, "We're going to kill your children."

* Other techniques included threats, "hard takedowns," placing harmless insects in a box with a prisoner who was terrified of insects, sleep deprivation, mandatory diapering, blowing cigar smoke, employing certain stress positions, the use of a stiff brush to cause pain, and stepping on a detainee's ankle shackles. The point of the cigar smoke was to make prisoners "ill to the point where they would start to 'purge.'"

* One CIA officer fired a handgun in a staged incident outside the interrogation room, combined with screaming and yelling by CIA officers and guards. "When the guards moved the detainee from the interrogation room, they passed a guard who was dressed as a hooded detainee, lying motionless on the ground, and made to appear as if he had been shot to death." There were other "mock executions."

These details seem to have been what convinced Attorney General Eric Holder to announce on Monday that he was ordering a criminal probe of the CIA's interrogation techniques. Holder appointed John Durham, a federal prosecutor, to head the investigation -- which will conclude with a recommendation about whether criminal charges should be brought or not.

No doubt the CIA interrogators will claim that a legal memorandum written by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general under Bush and now a federal appellate judge, justified their actions. What's a bit odd, though, is that Holder intentionally limited the scope of the investigation to exempt "anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees."

Translation: As long as someone from the Bush Justice Department had given their blessing to waterboarding or whatever else was going on, the CIA interrogators will remain immune from investigation and prosecution.

Monday's declassified document from the CIA's inspector general indicates that, in some but not all cases, interrogators went beyond what Bybee had declared to be legal. But the real impact of Holder's decision will be to retroactively affirm Bybee's legal opinion and shield Bush-era officials from criminal prosecution -- even if they knowingly violated the 1994 federal law prohibiting acts "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags:
Bush ,
bybee ,
yoo ,
torture ,
interrogation
Topics:
Torture
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 56 Comments
by triingboy August 25, 2009 1:27 PM EDT
It amazes me that you Republicans act like your such tough patriots and fighters, that you are the ones must scared by our enemies. Do you know what your chances are of dying in a car accident are compared to dying from one of these terrists? It's like many millions to one. Start living like Americans who have a rule of law and stop being such scary cats.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 1:07 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:53 PM EDT


BTW try defining when the "distinct difference" is crossed. Is that before they are...being lead to your cell crowded with twice the inmates as designed...
==============================================

You're starting to catch on.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 12:55 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
That's why Orwell wrote Animal Farm because he saw himself as the socialist Napoleon, right?
=========================================================

Actually, Orwell was a left-wing Labour-Party socialist. The tome which you reference was a castigation of communism (more specifically, Stalinism), not socialism.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:42 PM EDT
Well then enlighten us, if you can? Let's see a soldiers "Code of Conduct" kill or be killed,
================================

Wrong again. And don't even pretend that you were even REMOTELY associated with being a soldier.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT

So are Policemen et.al. torturing people? Or don't you have an easy answer to that, Hmmmmm? Are news agencies profiting from those abuses with the ole wink and a nod? If so why aren't you here and now decrying the abuses or does your rum soaked mentality only serve one dimention?

===========================

There is a distinct difference between tools and tactics used to capture and arrest a suspect and what methods you employ post capture. In other words, the threat is mitigated once a suspect is subdued.

Nice try but carry on with your denseness.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT

'BTW I seen Americans treated worse then that in the military, during boot camp.'

No, you didn't.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT

'And you take Orwell waaaaaaaaaay out of context as even those whose duty it is to do violence must also have a code of conduct.'

How so, since he was talking about the soldiers of WWII?
========================================

Again with the denseness.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
Pleeese, listening to your grunting could be defined as torture.

But water boarding someone 183 times? The first 10 times maybe but after that I would think is was just another shower and no big deal.
===========================================

On one hand, there is trying to employ reason and logic. On the other hand, there is being as dense as a Tab-Vee.

Carry on, Your Denseness.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 11:02 AM EDT
Save the sermon oh portentous one.

Safety is like making sausage, you just don't want to find out how it's made, do you?

I'll tell you wha, next time just don't give these guy any Quarter, since they give us none. Combatants captured and tortured 0, whining over torture leftist 0.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

===================================================

I see where you're coming from. As long as your team sets the rules, if they break them, you could care less. I, on the other hand, don't care which team commits the foul as long as the referee is impartial and is willing to penalize equally for an infraction.

And you take Orwell waaaaaaaaaay out of context as even those whose duty it is to do violence must also have a code of conduct.

P.S. Orwell was an ardent socialist.
Reply to this comment
by Oregon_State_OSU August 25, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
Did CIA Interrogators Violate Federal Law Against Torture

Thats a HUGE YES.

Did the Bush Administration Lie to the American Public about IRAQ

Thats a HUGE YES.

Did the Bush Administration Put the Economy into a Tail Spin and Screw up Everything under the sun & is Richard Cheney a war criminal and violate torture laws

Thats a Huge Yes.

Is Sarah Palin a complete IDIOT. Why Yes she IS !
Reply to this comment
by andouzy August 25, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
you american , you should prosecute holder and obama for icompetency and anti-americanism!!!
if september 2001 took place with obama and holder, you can sure that terrorism woulbe rewarded!!!
Reply to this comment
by hennighg August 25, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
I don't give diddly squat about libs or cons or any of that nonsense. The US is not supposed to be one of the thugs. WE are better than that. WE shouldn't be coming even close to torture. Cheney's administration violated the most meaningful of all American ideals: We're the good guys, not the Nazis.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 10:22 AM EDT
by HereIsBaghdad2009 August 25, 2009 10:02 AM EDT
I call this "dance according to the music" lawyers.

=================================

You apparently can't dance and your taste in music is questionable to say the least.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
BTW don't you guys follow the provided links? It shows the the definition of torture provided in the article was just enacted in 2008, fools?

"§ 2340A. Torture

Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 8, 2008, and it is this version that is published here."

============================================

So you're saying torture is a brand new concept and therefore there was no such thing as torture prior to Jan 2008? Or has the definition of torture changed so many times over the past eight years that you're confused as to what defines torture anymore?
Reply to this comment
by woeisme1 August 25, 2009 10:14 AM EDT
"All effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand."
Adolf Hitler

Is this not what the republicans do? YES

" The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. "
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - on the threat to democracy by corporate power

Is not this corporate power that the republicans want to protect? YES

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. "
Adolp HItler


Are not republicans destroying our paradise and turning into a hell? YES

Are not the republicans the party that has mastered propaganda? YES

Does not the republican party resemble Nazi Hitler? YES
Reply to this comment
by woeisme1 August 25, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
by jgg00000008 August 25, 2009 9:52 AM EDT
somebody super-sized your kool aide
============================

And God pea-sized your brain. I have nothing further to say to you teenage twits that post your blind allegience to republican extremists.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
by HereIsBaghdad2009 August 25, 2009 8:32 AM EDT
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 6:53 AM EDT
by McHineguy August 25, 2009 2:03 AM EDT
================================

I get it, Baggy. If the other guy commits horrendous acts, that gives us license to do the same.

No thanks. I hold this country to a higher standard.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 25, 2009 9:51 AM EDT
by NEWCO123 August 25, 2009 8:40 AM EDT
How Naive, hold on, there I got that tear out of my eye. Did you see the movie LA Confidential? Did you know that was based on known facts? That's how we treat Americans here behind the scenes, so how do you think we treat war combatants, Hmmmm? This law was meant to keep politicians hands clean, nothing more.

===============

Again with the moral relativism? If it happens and people in authority are the ones practicing abuses of human rights, it must be okay? I get it now.
Reply to this comment
by Ms_enza August 25, 2009 9:39 AM EDT
Bring on the lions, bring on the guilty.
Reply to this comment
by Ms_enza August 25, 2009 9:38 AM EDT
by the_majesty August 25, 2009 7:35 AM EDT
"Did CIA violate Federal Law ?" Not according to Lawyers, at the time...

===============

Oh boy, oh boy! If that's all it takes, I'm going to find me a lawyer to write me a letter saying I don't have to pay taxes!

Lawyers don't make laws; they don't interpret laws. They plead cases. They give "learned advice", but they cannot change the law and if they advise their client to break the law, then they are guilty of malpractice at best and conspiracy ate worst. Twit.
Reply to this comment
See all 56 Comments

About Taking Liberties

Declan McCullagh's iconoclastic take on politics, the economy, and individual rights. (Iconoclast: From Medieval Latin "iconoclastes," and from Middle Greek "eikonoklast's," meaning image destroyer.) Sample topics: economy, politics, interviews, free speech, property rights, gun rights, lessons in economics, individual rights, interviews, technology, features.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn